 |
|
Radiation Dose Associated With Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer
Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD;
Jafi Lipson, MD;
Ralph Marcus, BA;
Kwang-Pyo Kim, PhD;
Mahadevappa Mahesh, MS, PhD;
Robert Gould, ScD;
Amy Berrington de González, DPhil;
Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078-2086.
ABSTRACT
Background Use of computed tomography (CT) for diagnostic evaluation has increased dramatically over the past 2 decades. Even though CT is associated with substantially higher radiation exposure than conventional radiography, typical doses are not known. We sought to estimate the radiation dose associated with common CT studies in clinical practice and quantify the potential cancer risk associated with these examinations.
Methods We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study describing radiation dose associated with the 11 most common types of diagnostic CT studies performed on 1119 consecutive adult patients at 4 San Francisco Bay Area institutions in California between January 1 and May 30, 2008. We estimated lifetime attributable risks of cancer by study type from these measured doses.
Results Radiation doses varied significantly between the different types of CT studies. The overall median effective doses ranged from 2 millisieverts (mSv) for a routine head CT scan to 31 mSv for a multiphase abdomen and pelvis CT scan. Within each type of CT study, effective dose varied significantly within and across institutions, with a mean 13-fold variation between the highest and lowest dose for each study type. The estimated number of CT scans that will lead to the development of a cancer varied widely depending on the specific type of CT examination and the patient's age and sex. An estimated 1 in 270 women who underwent CT coronary angiography at age 40 years will develop cancer from that CT scan (1 in 600 men), compared with an estimated 1 in 8100 women who had a routine head CT scan at the same age (1 in 11 080 men). For 20-year-old patients, the risks were approximately doubled, and for 60-year-old patients, they were approximately 50% lower.
Conclusion Radiation doses from commonly performed diagnostic CT examinations are higher and more variable than generally quoted, highlighting the need for greater standardization across institutions.
INTRODUCTION
Computed tomography (CT) use has increased dramatically over the past several decades.1 The total number of CT examinations performed annually in the United States has risen from approximately 3 million in 1980 to nearly 70 million in 2007.2-3 Integrating CT into routine care has improved patient health care dramatically, and CT is widely considered among the most important advances in medicine. However, CT delivers much higher radiation doses than do conventional diagnostic x-rays. For example, a chest CT scan typically delivers more than 100 times the radiation dose of a routine frontal and lateral chest radiograph.4-5 Furthermore, radiation exposure from CT examinations has also increased, in part due to the increased speed of image acquisition allowing vascular, cardiac, and multiphase examinations, all associated with higher doses. Thus, greater use of CT has resulted in a concurrent increase in the medical exposure to ionizing radiation.2, 6
Exposure to ionizing radiation is of concern because evidence has linked exposure to low-level ionizing radiation at doses used in medical imaging to the development of cancer. The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council comprehensively reviewed biological and epidemiological data related to health risks from exposure to ionizing radiation, recently published as the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII Phase 2 report.7 The epidemiologic data described atomic bomb survivors, populations who lived near nuclear facilities during accidental releases of radioactive materials such as Chernobyl, workers with occupational exposures, and populations who received exposures from diagnostic and therapeutic medical studies. Radiation doses associated with commonly used CT examinations resemble doses received by individuals in whom an increased risk of cancer was documented. For example, an increased risk of cancer has been identified among long-term survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs, who received exposures of 10 to 100 milli-sieverts (mSv).8-11 A single CT scan can deliver an equivalent radiation exposure,12 and patients may receive multiple CT scans over time.13
Even though the risk to an individual patient may be small, the increasingly large number of people exposed, coupled with the increasingly high exposure per examination, could translate into many cases of cancer resulting directly from the radiation exposure from CT. It is important to understand how much radiation medical imaging delivers, so this potential for harm can be balanced against the potential for benefit. This is particularly important because the threshold for using CT has declined, and CT is increasingly being used among healthy individuals, in whom the risk of potential carcinogenesis from CT could outweigh its diagnostic value. To date, relatively few data describe how much radiation is received through the most common types of CT examinations when applied in clinical practice, as most published studies focused on phantom studies. Computed tomographic coronary angiography is the only examination that has been studied in detail. Our study aimed to estimate how much radiation exposure is associated with the types of CT examinations performed most commonly in the United States; to estimate variation across study types, patients, and institutions; and to use these data to estimate the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer associated with these tests.
METHODS
Data were collected at 4 institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area in California: the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), a 600-bed academic medical center in San Francisco; Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, a 555-bed private, community-based medical center in Berkeley; Marin General Hospital, a 235-bed acute care hospital serving Marin County; and California Pacific Medical Center, a private, community-based hospital with 1300 beds in San Francisco. These facilities were selected because of their relatively large size, diverse San Francisco Bay Area locations that allow for geographic diversity, availability of picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) that let us select particular types of CT examinations on consecutive patients at each institution, and reporting systems that allowed us to query the clinical reasons studies were ordered. Furthermore, each institution used the same manufacturer's CT scanners, letting us collect dose information consistently across sites. The institutional review boards at each participating institution approved the study.
SELECTION OF SPECIFIC CT STUDY TYPES
We abstracted radiation dose information on the most commonly performed types of diagnostic CT examinations. To determine the most frequent CT study types, we queried the UCSF Radiology Information System for all CT examinations performed in a single month (March 2008) and defined common study types as the 11 composing at least 1% of the total number of CT examinations (Table 1). We excluded examinations performed in association with a therapeutic procedure, such as CT-guided abscess drainage.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Types of Computed Tomographic (CT) Examinations Included in Our Report and the Typical Clinical Indications That Led to These Examinationsa
|
|
|
SELECTION OF PATIENT STUDIES
We sampled 20 to 30 consecutive patients 18 years and older from each of the 4 institutions for each of the study types between January 1, 2008, and May 31, 2008, for a total sample of 1119 patients. Our assessment of the dose associated with CT coronary angiography is limited to 2 institutions that routinely saved radiation dose data from this study type. For each patient, the technical parameters and dose report data (scan area, scan length, slice thickness, kVp [kilovolts (peak)], mAs [milliamperes per second], pitch, and dose-length product [DLP]) were abstracted from the CT images.
RADIATION DOSE
It is impractical to directly measure the radiation dose absorbed by individual patients even when the radiation emitted by a machine is precisely known. Instead, radiation exposure may be quantified using various methods. We used "effective dose" to quantify the radiation exposure associated with each CT examination because this is one of the most frequently reported measurements.14 Furthermore, effective dose allows comparison across the different types of CT studies and between CT and other imaging tests, facilitating comparison of CT to the most common radiology studies patients undergo. The effective dose accounts for the amount of radiation to the exposed organs and each organ's sensitivity to developing cancer from radiation exposure. An explanation and glossary is included in the eAppendix (first section). We estimated the effective dose using the DLP, which is recorded as part of the CT scan. The DLP is an approximation of the total energy a patient absorbs from the scan. We combined the DLP with details of the area imaged and used conversion factors to translate this into an effective dose that takes into account the sensitivities of different organs to developing radiation-induced cancer.15-16 A comparison of our approach to a more detailed approach based on organ-specific dose estimates using a computer software program (ImPACT CT Patient Dosimetry Calculator version 0.99x)17 is included in the eAppendix (second section).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics of the effective doses were calculated for each CT study type, and differences within and across institutions were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Because the distributions of doses were right skewed, we modeled the log transformation of dose to better satisfy ANOVA's assumption of normally distributed outcomes. To calculate the variation in dose, for each CT study type, we calculated the difference between the highest and lowest dose observed. To put the dose estimates in the context that patients and physicians can readily understand, the effective dose for each CT study type was compared with the effective doses for the 2 most common conventional radiology studies in the United States—a frontal and lateral chest radiography series (effective dose of 0.065 mSv)18 and a screening mammography series (including 2 views of each breast, effective dose of 0.42 mSv)18—using the ImPACT CT Patient Dosimetry Calculator version 0.99x17 among a random subset of 18 patients.
Although effective dose best reflects a patient's overall exposure to radiation, organ-specific dose may be more appropriate for estimating lifetime cancer risk for nonuniform exposures such as CT. For example, if a patient undergoes an imaging study that radiates only the breast, her risk of cancer from that examination will primarily reflect her increased risk of breast cancer. As an example of how organ-specific dose varies between CT and conventional radiography, we show for CT coronary angiography, which primarily imparts radiation to the lungs and to the breasts, a comparison between its organ-specific absorbed doses with those of a chest series (lung dose, 0.06 mGy) (to convert to millirads, multiply by 100) and a mammography series (breast dose, 3.5 mGy).18
ESTIMATING LAR OF CANCER
The BEIR VII (2006) report provides a method to estimate LAR of cancer based on the magnitude of a single radiation exposure and a patient's age at the time of that exposure.7 The LAR is defined as additional cancer risk above and beyond baseline cancer risk. This can be calculated for specific cancers as well as for all cancers combined. The age- and sex-specific LAR of all cancer incidence for the median and interquartile range of effective doses, for each type of study, was calculated using the BEIR VII risk estimates. We used all cancer as the outcome to compare all types of CT studies included in this report. For comparison purposes, we also estimated the LAR of cancer using a second approach for a subset of patients for whom we have more detailed dose information (see eAppendix [third section] and eFigure), and we used these results to develop an adjustment. We estimated the number of patients undergoing CT that would lead to the development of 1 radiation-induced cancer, by type of CT examination, age at the time of exposure, and sex. For each type of study, we also ranked the patients from those who received the lowest to highest effective dose and calculated the adjusted LAR of cancer corresponding to each effective dose, had those doses been received by patients aged 20, 40, or 60 years.
RESULTS
Table 1 gives the types of CT studies we examined and the clinical indications that led to them. Across all study types, the mean patient age was 59 years and 535 of the 1119 patients (48%) were female. These 11 study types comprise approximately 80% of all CTs performed. The remaining types of CT studies not included reflect a large number of additional study types, none of which contributed more than 1% to the total number of CTs.
VARIATION IN DOSE BETWEEN STUDY TYPES
Within each anatomic area, the median effective dose varied widely between study types (Table 2). For scans of the head and neck, the median effective dose varied from 2 mSv for a routine head (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3 mSv) to 14 mSv (IQR, 9-20 mSv) for a suspected stroke CT. For chest scans, the median effective dose varied from 8 mSv (IQR, 5-11 mSv) for a routine chest to 22 mSv (IQR, 14-24 mSv) for coronary angiography. For abdomen and pelvis scans, a routine CT scan without contrast had the lowest median effective dose (15 mSv [IQR, 10-20 mSv]), whereas a multiphase abdominal and pelvis CT scan had the highest median effective dose (31 mSv [IQR, 21-43 mSv]). For each anatomic area, studies that included an assessment of arteries (ie, suspected stroke, coronary angiography, suspected aneurysm or dissection) and the multiphase studies had higher exposures, resulting from the use of repeated series with these study types. Table 2 also gives the comparable number of conventional projection radiographs that result in a similar effective dose. The median effective dose delivered through a single CT scan was as high as 74 mammography series and 442 chest radiography series. Our comparison of organ-specific doses demonstrated that a CT coronary angiogram delivers a dose to the breast that is equivalent to approximately 15 mammography studies (51 mGy breast dose for CT coronary angiogram vs 3.5 mGy breast dose for a mammography series) and delivers a dose to the lung that is equivalent to 711 chest radiography series (64 mGy lung dose for CT coronary angiogram vs 0.09 mGy lung dose for a frontal and lateral chest radiograph).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Median Effective Radiation Dose (IQR, Minimum and Maximum) for Each Type of CT Study
|
|
|
VARIATION IN DOSE WITHIN STUDY TYPES
Even within study type, radiation dose varied substantially (Figure 1). There was a mean 13-fold variation between the highest and lowest dose for each CT study type included (range, 6- to 22-fold difference across the different study types). The effective doses tended to be higher and more variable in the abdomen and pelvis, where the widest range in dose was documented for multiphase abdomen and pelvis CT scanning (range, 6-90 mSv). The variation in doses occurred both within and across institutions (Table 3). The mean doses differed 2-fold across institutions, and for several of the study types, the mean dose across institutions differed by 3-fold or more. For example, the mean (SD) effective dose for a suspected stroke CT was 8 (2) mSv at site 3 compared with 29 (8) mSv at site 4. We observed no consistent pattern for which institution had the highest radiation dose; rather, each site had the highest dose for at least one of the included study types.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Distribution of median (interquartile range) estimated effective dose by computed tomography study type. The "whiskers" show the minimum and maximum observed values. mSv indicates milli-sievert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Mean (SD) Effective Dose for Each Type of CT Study at Each of the 4 Sites
|
|
|
ADJUSTED LARs OF CANCER
For 6 of the study types, the estimated effective doses for each study type, sorted from the lowest (1%) to the highest (100%) across patients, and the corresponding adjusted LAR of cancer are shown in Figure 2, assuming all examinations were received by a 20-year-old woman. For a routine head CT scan, the median effective dose was 2 mSv, and the corresponding median adjusted LAR of cancer was 0.23 cancers per 1000 patients (range, 0.03-0.70 cancers per 1000 patients). For a multiphase abdomen and pelvis CT scan, the median effective dose was 31 mSv, and the corresponding median adjusted LAR of cancer was 4 cancers per 1000 patients (range, 0.8-11.1 cancers per 1000 patients). For some study types, the range in the associated effective dose was narrow, with a correspondingly narrow range in the adjusted LARs of cancer (eg, routine head CT). In contrast, the effective dose for most studies had a much wider range with a correspondingly broad range in the adjusted LARs of cancer.
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Estimated range in the lifetime attributable risk of cancer if a 20-year-old woman underwent one of several types of computed tomographic (CT) studies using the distribution in radiation dose exposure from our report. The x-axis represents the estimated effective doses for each study type, sorted from the lowest (1%) to the highest (100%) across patients.
|
|
|
THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CTs THAT WOULD LEAD TO CANCER BY STUDY TYPE
For each study type, Table 4 gives the estimated number of patients undergoing CT that would lead to the development of 1 radiation-induced cancer, by age at exposure and sex. As expected, the number of CT scans that would result in a cancer varies widely by sex, age, and study type. Reflecting a higher cancer risk of radiation among women, it would take far fewer CT scans to result in a cancer among women compared with men. Coronary angiography had the lowest number of CT scans that would result in a single cancer. Among 40-year-old women who underwent coronary angiography CT, we estimate that 1 cancer would be expected to occur among approximately 270 women as a result of the radiation exposure of the examination (IQR, 1 in 250 to 1 in 420). In contrast, it would take the largest numbers of routine head CT scans to result in a single cancer. Among 40-year-old women, 1 cancer would occur among 8105 patients who underwent a routine head CT scan (IQR, 1 in 6110 to 1 in 9500). For a 60-year-old woman, the risks were substantially lower and varied from approximately 1 in 420 examinations for CT coronary angiography (IQR, 1 in 370 to 1 in 640) to 1 in 12 250 examinations for a routine head CT scan (IQR, 1 in 9230 to 1 in 14 360). For a 20-year-old woman, the risks were substantially higher and varied from approximately 1 in 150 examinations for CT coronary angiography (IQR, 1 in 130 to 1 in 230) to 1 in 4360 examinations for a routine head CT scan (IQR, 1 in 3290 to 1 in 5110).
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Estimated Number of Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography (CT) That Would Lead to the Development of 1 Radiation-Induced Cancer, by Type of CT Examination and Age at the Time of Exposure, Based on the Median and Interquartile Radiation Dose Observed
|
|
|
COMMENT
We documented higher and more variable doses than what is typically quoted from the most common types of diagnostic CT studies performed in clinical practice. For example, the median effective dose of an abdomen and pelvis CT scan (the most common type of CT examination performed in the United States12) is often quoted as 8 to 10 mSv.6, 16, 19 Yet we found that the median dose of a routine abdomen and pelvis CT scan was 66% higher, and the median dose of a multiphase abdomen and pelvis CT scan was nearly 4-fold higher. Furthermore, we found substantial variation in doses within and across institutions, with a mean 13-fold variation between the highest and lowest dose for each CT study type included. Thus, depending on where an individual patient received imaging and the specific technical parameters used, the effective dose received could substantially exceed the median. While some of this variation may be clinically indicated to accommodate patients of different size or the specifics of the clinical question that was being addressed, the variation in effective dose was dramatic and of greater magnitude than widely considered acceptable, particularly considering that the patients were already stratified within relatively well-defined clinical groups. The variation in dose across the 4 clinical sites reflects site-specific methods of choosing different technical parameters to answer the same clinical question.
The corresponding LARs of cancer were also higher than typically reported and markedly variable by study type, patient, and hospital. For example, it is commonly reported that a CT scan may be associated with an increase in the risk of cancer of approximately 1 in 2000.2, 19 Based on the highest effective dose we observed, a 20-year-old women who underwent a CT for suspected pulmonary embolism, a CT coronary angiography or a multiphase abdomen and pelvis CT scan could have an associated increased risk of developing cancer of as high as 1 in 80 (Figure 2). The risks declined substantially with age and were lower for men, so radiation-associated cancer risks are of particular concern for younger, female patients. It is precisely because the risks of cancer are so high among younger patients that we chose to illustrate the risk of cancer when CT is used in a 20-year-old female patient. Although it is generally assumed that very little CT imaging occurs in children and young adults, approximately 5% of all CT examinations are performed in children, 10% of all CT examinations are performed in those aged 20 to 30 years, and 5% of 20-year-old patients undergo CT imaging per year.20 Also, the frequency of CT imaging in children and young adults is increasing.
The doses we documented may be higher than typically reported for 3 main reasons. First, we estimated radiation doses received by patients in clinical practice, whereas many previous studies have assessed the dose received in idealized settings on phantoms, ie, sophisticated plastic models created to measure dose when put in a real scanners. Study parameters applied in phantoms may differ substantially from those used in actual clinical settings.21-22
Second, most prior work described experience at a single institution or a single type of CT study, where the specific instructions for conducting studies may be standardized. We studied patients in clinical practice, who underwent imaging for a range of symptoms and clinical indications, and across different institutions, where there was no standardization related to our study. For example, a common clinical indication for a multiphase abdomen and pelvis CT scan is suspected renal cancer in patients with hematuria (blood in the urine). This type of study may start out as a single phase, noncontrast examination (a low-dose study to assess for renal calculi) but may be expanded to include contrast and multiple phases of imaging to evaluate for renal or bladder cancer (a resulting high-dose study). In fact, the variation in the evaluation of this symptom was dramatic, with large differences in the number of series that were obtained, both within and across institutions, contributing to the large difference in means and standard deviations for this study type.
Third, most prior work grouped all studies within the same anatomic area together; however, even within one anatomic area, not all CT scans involve similar doses. Protocols requiring more images by increasing the scan length or repeatedly scanning through the same area result in higher radiation exposure. For example, an increasingly common indication for CT is to assess a patient for the possibility of pulmonary embolism. The mean effective doses for 3 of the hospitals for the suspected pulmonary embolism CT were 8, 9, and 9 mSv, whereas the mean effective dose for the fourth site was 21 mSv. The fourth was the only site where, in addition to images through the chest to directly assess for pulmonary embolism, they also increased the scan length and scanned through the patient's pelvis and proximal thighs to assess for the presence of deep vein thromboses. While it is not uncommon, nor necessarily unreasonable, to include lower-extremity venography when a patient is referred for suspected pulmonary embolism CT (pulmonary embolisms and deep vein thromboses are considered 2 manifestations of 1 pathologic process and share the same treatment23), this difference in CT protocol leads to a substantial increase in radiation exposure and thus cancer risk. We found radiation exposure was more than 2-fold greater for this study type when the extra images were included. A 2-fold difference in average radiation exposure is not insignificant and needs to be considered when specific protocols are set and needs to be understood by referring clinicians when they weigh the risks and benefits of this study.
The possibility that CT may cause more cancers than it prevents has been raised with respect to full-body screening CT examinations conducted in asymptomatic persons.24 In contrast, CT is generally considered to have a very favorable risk to benefit profile among symptomatic patients. However, the threshold for using CT has declined so that it is no longer used only in very sick patients but also in those with mild, self-limited illness who are otherwise healthy. In these patients, the value of CT needs to be balanced against this small but real risk of carcinogenesis resulting from its use. Neither physicians25-26 nor patients27 are generally aware of the radiation associated with CT, its risk of carcinogenesis, or the importance of limiting exposure among younger patients. It is important to make both physicians and patients aware that this risk exists.
Consensus is growing that patients' exposure to radiation through medical imaging needs to be reduced, and we believe that 3 general approaches should be taken. First, CT examination protocols and techniques should be optimized and standardized to limit the radiation associated with individual scans. This would include standardizing protocols across sites, reducing multiple series within each examination, implementing dose reduction strategies, and encouraging participation in accreditation programs such as that offered by the American College of Radiology. In practice, these guidelines have not been widely embraced, perhaps because no regulatory component is associated with their use. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires manufacturers to record dosing information when phantoms are scanned using set imaging parameters, the FDA does not monitor or regulate the dose associated with clinical CT applications. In contrast, the FDA monitors and regulates the dose associated with mammography examinations and has successfully standardized the associated doses. Creating specific standards for CT examinations and requiring adoption would lead to a reduction in mean and outlier doses. For example, for some CT study types, dose reduction techniques can reduce the dose by 50% or greater.28 Great Britain and several European countries have been more aggressive in trying to limit radiation exposure from CT with some success.29 Interestingly, a recent report of the doses associated with CT coronary angiography documented substantial variation in dose across facilities, but the mean effective dose they report was approximately half the effective dose we found for the same type of CT study.30 Many of the study sites were in the United Kingdom and Europe, where efforts to minimize radiation dose have been ongoing for several years. Among pediatric patients, efforts have been more common and successful to reduce the radiation dose,31 in part resulting from articles highlighting that when standard adult settings are used in children, the resulting cancer risks are much higher.32
A second approach to minimize medical radiation exposure should focus on reducing the number of CT examinations. Although difficult to fully assess, it has been reported that 30% or more of the CT examinations currently performed may be unnecessary. The European Commission Office of Radiation Protection and the Canadian Association of Radiologists developed guidelines highlighting where CT imaging should be curtailed,33-34 including repeating investigations that have already been done; imaging when it is unlikely to affect patient management because a positive finding is irrelevant, such as assessment and surveillance of incidental findings; investigating too often—before the disease could have progressed or before the results could influence treatment; performing the wrong investigation; and overinvestigating. Many CT examinations in the United States fall into these categories, for example, the repeated use of CT for patients with documented renal stones, and more explicit discussion and guidelines are needed on how to reduce these unnecessary CT studies.
The third approach to reducing exposure may be to track and collect dose information at the patient level because patients may undergo repeated imaging over time.13 Tracking detailed dose information at the patient level and in a systemwide fashion such as within a searchable, electronic medical record would help educate patients and health care providers about radiation exposure and could facilitate activities to minimize dose when possible. The impact of this could be particularly dramatic among the subset of patients who have repeated imaging and who are thus at greatest risk of radiation-associated cancer.
Our study has several strengths. We collected data from 4 large institutions, which included an average of 100 patients for each type of study, and results were collected on consecutive patients for each study type at each institution. We also included the most frequent types of CT examinations patients undergo, making the results highly relevant. Furthermore, we collected data from actual clinical practice.
Our study also has several weaknesses. Our cohort was insufficiently large to understand the reasons for variation of dose associated with each type of study, including the technologist's experience, the availability of physicians to check studies in real time that might lead them to add or subtract additional series, geographic variation, type and specific dose-reduction or dose-modulation algorithms available or used, and patient level factors (such as weight) that may have led to differences in dose. Our work highlights the pressing need for large national studies to understand how these factors contribute to variation in dose. Similarly, we did not assess the relationship between image quality and radiation dose; there is a pressing need to determine optimum dose for each type of study that balances image quality with keeping the doses as low as possible. We grouped studies by the clinical indications that led to the studies, but there may have been imprecision in our characterizing the indications that led to these studies. All scans were performed using a single manufacturer's scanners, but doses depend on manufacturer and model. Limiting the results to a single manufacturer will have underestimated the true variation in dose. The methods we used to assess radiation dose are imprecise. We presented "effective dose," calculated using the scanner-provided DLP measurement, because this is simple to calculate, straightforward, and reliable and thus can be used as an easy starting point to begin to record patient-level exposure. Although different metrics will yield slightly different estimates35 and these methods are based on assumptions of patient size that may not be applicable to all patients, this method is highly concordant with other methods of estimating dose.36-37 Similarly, we used a simple method to estimate LAR but found high agreement with a more detailed method that relies on organ doses calculated with computer simulation models. However, this method needs to be further validated and refined among a larger group of patients. Furthermore, several other uncertainties exist in the methods used to project lifetime risk from radiation exposure,7 so the LARs should not be viewed as exact patient risks. Lastly, the LAR of cancer needs to be put into context of the patients' remaining life expectancy, and our calculations were based on the assumption of normal life expectancy. For individuals with lower life expectancy, these estimates will overestimate their lifetime risk; if mortality rates were increased by 20%, the risks of carcinogenesis would have been overestimated by 5%.38
The radiation exposure associated with CT has increased substantially over the past 2 decades, and efforts need to be undertaken to minimize radiation exposure from CT, including reducing unnecessary studies, reducing the dose per study, and reducing the variation in dose across patients and facilities. Patient outcomes studies are needed to help define when CT leads to the greatest benefit and when these studies may have no impact, where that the radiation risk may be greater than the benefit expected from the examinations. Understanding exposures to medical radiation delivered through actual clinical studies is a crucial first step toward developing reasonable strategies to minimize unnecessary exposures.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Correspondence: Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, 350 Parnassus Ave, Ste 307, San Francisco, CA 94115 (rebecca.smith-bindman{at}radiology.ucsf.edu).
Accepted for Publication: September 14, 2009.
Author Contributions: Dr Smith-Bindman had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Smith-Bindman and Lipson. Acquisition of data: Smith-Bindman, Lipson, and Marcus. Analysis and interpretation of data: Smith-Bindman, Kim, Mahesh, Gould, Berrington de González, and Miglioretti. Drafting of the manuscript: Smith- Bindman, Lipson, Gould, and Miglioretti. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Smith-Bindman, Marcus, Kim, Mahesh, Berrington de González, and Miglioretti. Statistical analysis: Smith-Bindman, Marcus, Gould, Berrington de González, and Miglioretti. Obtained funding: Smith-Bindman. Administrative, technical, and material support: Smith-Bindman, Lipson, Kim, and Mahesh. Study supervision: Smith-Bindman.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
Funding/Support: This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioEngineering training grant T32 EB001631, NIH National Cancer Institute grants CA125036 and CA 131698, and the UCSF School of Medicine Bridge Funding Program.
Role of the Sponsor: None of the funders were involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Additional Contributions: Edward Baker, MD (California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco), Dennis Orwig, MD (Marin General Hospital, Greenbrae, California), Erik Gaensler, MD (Alta Bates Medical Center, Berkeley, California), and John Boone, PhD (University of California, Davis), provided generous help in completing this work.
Author Affiliations: Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (Drs Smith-Bindman, Lipson, and Gould), Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Dr Smith-Bindman), Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences (Dr Smith-Bindman), and School of Medicine (Mr Marcus), University of California, San Francisco; Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea (Dr Kim); The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland (Dr Mahesh); Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland (Dr Berrington de González); and Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, and Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Miglioretti).
REFERENCES
1. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. A Data Book: Healthcare Spending and the Medicare Program. June 2007. http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Jun08DataBook_Entire_report.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2008.
2. Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE; et al, American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4(5):272-284.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
3. IMV Medical Information Division. CT Census Database and Market Summary Report. Greenbelt, MD: IMV; 2008.4. Linet MS, Kim KP, Rajaraman P. Children's exposure to diagnostic medical radiation and cancer risk: epidemiologic and dosimetric considerations. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39(S1)(suppl 1):S4-S26.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
5. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248(1):254-263.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. 2009. NCRP report 160. http://www.ncrponline.org/. Accessed October 7, 2009.7. Board of Radiation Effects Research Division on Earth and Life Sciences National Research Council of the National Academies. Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.8. Pierce DA, Preston DL. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2000;154(2):178-186.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
9. Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S; et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998. Radiat Res. 2007;168(1):1-64.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
10. Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys. 2003;85(1):43-46.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
11. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT; et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(24):13761-13766.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Mettler FA Jr, Thomadsen BR, Bhargavan M; et al. Medical radiation exposure in the US in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys. 2008;95(5):502-507.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
13. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP; et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology. 2009;251(1):175-184.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing Patient Dose in Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Commission on Radiological Protection; 2007.15. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003 [published correction appears in Br J Radiol. 2007 Aug;80(956):685]. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(948):968-980.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The Measurement, Reporting and Management of Radiation Dose in CT: Report of AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee. College Park, MD: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2008. AAPM report 96.17. ImPACT Group Web site. http://www.impactscan.org/. Accessed October 7, 2009.18. National Cancer Institute. Radiation risks and pediatric computed tomography (CT): a guide for health care providers. 2009. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/radiation-risks-pediatric-CT. Accessed October 7, 2009.19. US Food and Drug Administration. What are the radiation risks from CT? 2008. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/CT/risks.html. Accessed October 7, 2009.20. Smith-Bindman R , Miglioretti D, Larson E. Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in an large integrated health plan. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;26(6):1491-1502.
PUBMED
21. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007;298(3):317-323.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. Nationwide Evaluation of X-Ray Trends (NEXT): Tabulation and Graphical Summary of 2000 Survey of Computed Tomography. Frankfort, KY: Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Inc; 2007.23. Hunsaker AR, Zou KH, Poh AC; et al. Routine pelvic and lower extremity CT venography in patients undergoing pulmonary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(2):322-326.
FREE FULL TEXT
24. Twombly R. Full body CT screening: preventing or producing cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(22):1650-1651.
FREE FULL TEXT
25. Griffey RT, Sodickson A. Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(4):887-892.
FREE FULL TEXT
26. McBride J, Paxton B, Warddrop R. Majority of ordering physicians lack knowledge of radiation exposure risks from CT. Study presented at: 109th Annual American Roentgen Ray Society Meeting; April 27, 2009; Boston, MA.27. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Dillman J, Schipper MJ, Francis IR. Medical decision making regarding computed tomographic radiation dose and associated risk: the patient's perspective. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(11):1069-1071.
FREE FULL TEXT
28. Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U; et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(2):391-394.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
29. Nagel HD, Blobel J, Brix G; et al. 5 years of "concerted action dose reduction in CT"–what has been achieved and what remains to be done? [in German]. Rofo. 2004;176(11):1683-1694.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
30. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F; et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA. 2009;301(5):500-507.
FREE FULL TEXT
31. Arch ME, Frush DP. Pediatric body MDCT: a 5-year follow-up survey of scanning parameters used by pediatric radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):611-617.
FREE FULL TEXT
32. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(2):289-296.
FREE FULL TEXT
33. European Commission. Referral Guidelines for Imaging: Radiation Protection 118. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2001.34. Canadian Association of Radiologists. Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guidelines. 2005. http://www.car.ca/content.aspx?pg=Guidelines&spg=Stds_Guidelns&lang=E&lID=. Accessed February 13, 2009.35. Ficaro EP, Zanzonico P, Stabin MG; et al. Variability in radiation dose estimates from nuclear and computed tomography diagnostic imaging. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Guidelines and Standards Web site. http://www.asnc.org/content_184.cfm?tagSearch=true. Accessed September 1, 2009.36. Hurwitz LM, Reiman RE, Yoshizumi TT; et al. Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetector CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction. Radiology. 2007;245(3):742-750.
FREE FULL TEXT
37. Einstein AJ, Sanz J, Dellegrottaglie S; et al. Radiation dose and cancer risk estimates in 16-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15(2):232-240.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
38. Berrington de González A, Darby SC. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363(9406):345-351.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Invited Commentary—Emergency Department Neuroimaging: Are We Using our Heads?: Comment on "Use of Neuroimaging in US Emergency Departments"
Jeffrey A. Tabas and Renee Y. Hsia
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(3):262-264.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLES
Cancer Risks and Radiation Exposure From Computed Tomographic Scans: How Can We Be Sure That the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?
Rita F. Redberg
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2049-2050.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Projected Cancer Risks From Computed Tomographic Scans Performed in the United States in 2007
Amy Berrington de González, Mahadevappa Mahesh, Kwang-Pyo Kim, Mythreyi Bhargavan, Rebecca Lewis, Fred Mettler, and Charles Land
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071-2077.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Effects of Radiation Exposure From Cardiac Imaging: How Good Are the Data?
Einstein
J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:553-565.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Federal Government's Oversight of CT Safety: Regulatory Possibilities
Harvey and Pandharipande
Radiology 2012;262:391-398.
FULL TEXT
Primary Care Attributes and Mortality: A National Person-Level Study
Jerant et al.
Ann Fam Med 2012;10:34-41.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Information Imperative: Is It Time for an Informed Consent Process Explaining the Risks of Medical Radiation?
Semelka et al.
Radiology 2012;262:15-18.
FULL TEXT
Management of patient dose in radiology in the UK
Martin
Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011;147:355-372.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reducing Patient Radiation Dose during CT-Guided Procedures: Demonstration in Spinal Injections for Pain
Shepherd et al.
Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2011;32:1776-1782.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Optimization of 64-MDCT Urography: Effect of Dual-Phase Imaging With Furosemide on Collecting System Opacification and Radiation Dose
Portnoy et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011;197:W882-W886.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Organ and effective dose reduction in adult chest CT using abdominal lead shielding
Iball and Brettle
Br. J. Radiol. 2011;84:1020-1026.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Informatics in Radiology: RADIANCE: An Automated, Enterprise-wide Solution for Archiving and Reporting CT Radiation Dose Estimates
Cook et al.
RadioGraphics 2011;31:1833-1846.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality Initiatives: CT Radiation Dose Reduction: How to Implement Change without Sacrificing Diagnostic Quality
Tamm et al.
RadioGraphics 2011;31:1823-1832.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Female Breast, Lung, and Pelvic Organ Radiation From Dose-Reduced 64-MDCT Thoracic Examination Protocols: A Phantom Study
Litmanovich et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011;197:929-934.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Coronary CT angiography for acute chest pain triage: Techniques for radiation exposure reduction; 128 vs. 64 multidetector CT
Goitein et al.
Acta Radiol 2011;52:840-845.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of Reduced Patient Life Expectancy on Potential Cancer Risks from Radiologic Imaging
Brenner et al.
Radiology 2011;261:193-198.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Detection of Pulmonary Emboli With 99mTc-Labeled Anti-D-dimer (DI-80B3)Fab' Fragments (ThromboView)
Morris et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2011;184:708-714.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Dose Reduction With Coronary CTA
Calhoun et al.
radtech 2011;83:86-89.
FULL TEXT
Lung cancer screening with low-dose helical CT: results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)
Kramer et al.
J Med Screen 2011;18:109-111.
FULL TEXT
Cancer induction caused by radiation due to computed tomography: a critical note
Pauwels and Bourguignon
Acta Radiol 2011;52:767-773.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
CT in COPD: just a pretty picture or really worth a thousand words (or dollars)?
Sin et al.
Thorax 2011;66:741-742.
FULL TEXT
Minimizing and Communicating Radiation Risk in Pediatric Nuclear Medicine
Fahey et al.
JNM 2011;52:1240-1251.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical evaluation of cardiovascular devices: principles, problems, and proposals for European regulatory reform: Report of a policy conference of the European Society of Cardiology
Fraser et al.
Eur Heart J 2011;32:1673-1686.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Automated Extraction of Radiation Dose Information From CT Dose Report Images
Li et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011;196:W781-W783.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pulmonary CT Angiography to Evaluate for Pulmonary Embolism in Children Visiting Adult-Centered Community Hospitals
Arnold et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011;196:W823-W830.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
More Attention Should Be Given to the Risk from CT in the Emergency Department
Liang
Radiology 2011;259:923-924.
FULL TEXT
Rising Use of CT in Child Visits to the Emergency Department in the United States, 1995-2008
Larson et al.
Radiology 2011;259:793-801.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Year in Epidemiology, Health Services Research, and Outcomes Research
Hlatky and Heidenreich
J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1859-1866.
FULL TEXT
Electronic decision support for diagnostic imaging in a primary care setting
Curry and Reed
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18:267-270.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Radiation Protection in Pediatric Imaging
FURLOW
radtech 2011;82:421-439.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Diagnostic Value of Halo and Reversed Halo Signs for Invasive Mold Infections in Compromised Hosts
Georgiadou et al.
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;52:1144-1155.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
CT Dose Index and Patient Dose: They Are Not the Same Thing
McCollough et al.
Radiology 2011;259:311-316.
FULL TEXT
COMPARISON OF OPERATOR RADIATION EXPOSURE BETWEEN C-ARM AND O-ARM FLUOROSCOPY FOR ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY
Park et al.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011;0:ncr149v1-ncr149.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Fears, Feelings, and Facts: Interactively Communicating Benefits and Risks of Medical Radiation With Patients
Dauer et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011;196:756-761.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation of screening-detected lung nodules: minimising the risk of unnecessary biopsy and surgery
Gould
Thorax 2011;66:277-279.
FULL TEXT
The use of central venous catheters for intravenous contrast injection for CT examinations
Plumb and Murphy
Br. J. Radiol. 2011;84:197-203.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
CT Radiation Dose: What Can You Do Right Now in Your Practice?
Coakley et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011;196:619-625.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Estimated Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging in Hemodialysis Patients
De Mauri et al.
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2011;22:571-578.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Managing Radiation Use in Medical Imaging: A Multifaceted Challenge
Hricak et al.
Radiology 2011;258:889-905.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The risks of radiation exposure related to diagnostic imaging and how to minimise them
Davies et al.
BMJ 2011;342:d947-d947.
FULL TEXT
Invited Commentary--Emergency Department Neuroimaging: Are We Using our Heads?: Comment on "Use of Neuroimaging in US Emergency Departments"
Tabas and Hsia
Arch Intern Med 2011;171:262-264.
FULL TEXT
Randomized Trials in 2466 Patients With Stage I Seminoma: Patterns of Relapse and Follow-up
Mead et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:241-249.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A manufacturer's role in reducing the dose of cone beam computed tomography examinations: effect of beam filtration
Ludlow
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:115-122.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Multi-detector computed tomography coronary angiography: the incidental lung findings
Alfakih and Budoff
JRSM 2011;104:50-51.
FULL TEXT
High-Value, Cost-Conscious Health Care: Concepts for Clinicians to Evaluate the Benefits, Harms, and Costs of Medical Interventions
Owens et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2011;154:174-180.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Contemporary Diagnostic Imaging Modalities for the Staging and Surveillance of Melanoma Patients: a Meta-analysis
Xing et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:129-142.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Current Imaging Assessment and Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms
Hacein-Bey and Provenzale
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011;196:32-44.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Stress echocardiography in the age of multi-detector computed tomography
Alfakih and Monaghan
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;12:1-2.
FULL TEXT
National Trends in CT Use in the Emergency Department: 1995-2007
Larson et al.
Radiology 2011;258:164-173.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Myocardial Perfusion Scans: Projected Population Cancer Risks From Current Levels of Use in the United States
Berrington de Gonzalez et al.
Circulation 2010;122:2403-2410.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Patient doses in CT examinations in Switzerland: implementation of national diagnostic reference levels
Treier et al.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;142:244-254.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Incidence of Morbidity From Penetrating Palate Trauma
Hennelly et al.
Pediatrics 2010;126:e1578-e1584.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Discussing Radiation Risks Associated With CT Scans With Patients
Baerlocher and Detsky
JAMA 2010;304:2170-2171.
FULL TEXT
Exposure to Diagnostic Radiological Procedures and the Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Bailey et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2897-2909.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
CT Colonography May Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Compliance
Moawad et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010;195:1118-1123.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Acute STroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne (ASTRAL): Design and Baseline Analysis of an Ischemic Stroke Registry Including Acute Multimodal Imaging
Michel et al.
Stroke 2010;41:2491-2498.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Coronary Risk Stratification, Discrimination, and Reclassification Improvement Based on Quantification of Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis: The Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study
Erbel et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:1397-1406.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Role of Contrast Echocardiography in Screening for Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformation in Patients With Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia
Gossage
Chest 2010;138:769-771.
FULL TEXT
Responding to Incidental Findings on Research Imaging Studies: Now What?
Lo
Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1522-1524.
FULL TEXT
Lifetime Follow-up Care After Childhood Cancer
Haddy and Haddy
J Am Board Fam Med 2010;23:647-654.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
One Hundred Two Patients With Pheochromocytoma Treated at a Single Institution Since the Introduction of Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy
Shen et al.
Arch Surg 2010;145:893-897.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Genomic and gene expression signatures of radiation in medulloblastomas after low-dose irradiation in Ptch1 heterozygous mice
Ishida et al.
Carcinogenesis 2010;31:1694-1701.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Optimal imaging after coarctation stenting
Rosenthal and Bell
Heart 2010;96:1169-1171.
FULL TEXT
Radiation Exposure From Medical Imaging: Time to Regulate?
Brenner and Hricak
JAMA 2010;304:208-209.
FULL TEXT
President Obama's Coronary Calcium Scan--Reply
Redberg
Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1175-1176.
FULL TEXT
Reply to "Letter to the Editor: 'Low-dose whole body irradiation: a potential therapeutic modality'"
Zhang et al.
Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2010;299:E138-E140.
FULL TEXT
Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Self-Renewal and Pluripotency of Human Embryonic Stem Cells
Wilson et al.
Cancer Res. 2010;70:5539-5548.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Radiation Exposure in CT: What Is the Professionally Responsible Approach?
Golding
Radiology 2010;255:683-686.
FULL TEXT
Less Is More: How Less Health Care Can Result in Better Health
Grady and Redberg
Arch Intern Med 2010;170:749-750.
FULL TEXT
Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Cardiac Imaging With Ionizing Radiation
Gerber and Gibbons
J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2010;3:528-535.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography
FURLOW
radtech 2010;81:437-450.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Multiple-breath inert gas washout test and early cystic fibrosis lung disease
Aurora
Thorax 2010;65:373-374.
FULL TEXT
Less Is More
Redberg
Arch Intern Med 2010;170:584-584.
FULL TEXT
Mild traumatic brain injury: Part 1: Determining the need to scan
Levine
cfp 2010;56:346-349.
FULL TEXT
Control and Management of the Radiation Environment
Frey
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010;194:867-867.
FULL TEXT
Mammography and Women Under 50: Deja Vu All Over Again?
Stefanek et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:635-639.
FULL TEXT
CT Radiation Exposure and Cancer
JWatch Emergency Med. 2010;2010:1-1.
FULL TEXT
Cancer Risks and Radiation Exposure From Computed Tomographic Scans: How Can We Be Sure That the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?
Redberg
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2049-2050.
FULL TEXT
|
